Effective January 1, 2026, Senate Bill 37 (SB 37) took effect and updated the rules governing how attorneys may advertise their services.

Although the law modernizes some aspects of the advertising framework to reflect today’s digital landscape, the fundamental prohibitions remain largely the same: attorney advertising still may not be false, misleading, or deceptive. What has changed is how broadly the law now defines “advertising” and how aggressively it can be enforced.

SB 37, authored by Senator Thomas Umberg and supported by Consumer Attorneys of California, largely reaffirms long‑standing principles that have governed attorney advertising for decades. California attorneys have always been prohibited from making statements that guarantee outcomes, promise quick settlements or immediate cash, or otherwise create unwarranted expectations about results.

The new legislation does not alter those substantive prohibitions. Instead, it clarifies the Legislature’s continued commitment to ensuring that consumers have accurate information when evaluating their legal options.

Where SB 37 does break new ground is in its recognition of modern communication methods. The statute expands the definition of “advertising” to include virtually any written, recorded, or electronic communication intended to encourage someone to hire a lawyer.

This expressly encompasses social‑media videos, influencer content, online banner ads, podcasts, and other rapidly evolving forms of digital outreach.

By broadening the definition, the Legislature has made clear that traditional advertising rules apply equally across all platforms, whether the message appears on television or TikTok.

The law also strengthens enforcement mechanisms surrounding “capping,” the practice in which nonlawyers solicit clients for attorneys, often in settings where consumers may be vulnerable or have limited access to information. While capping has long been prohibited, SB 37 modernizes enforcement by expanding who can be considered a capper and authorizing civil actions by private individuals.

These changes are rooted not in new prohibitions but in the belief that existing rules must be reinforced to remain effective in a digital and decentralized economy.

By Rachelle H. Cohen